So the DOJ/FBI has a Secret Society that meets off-site. Hmm. Last time I heard of a secret society in the USA it was the KKK. Is this new society involved in lynchings also (of the high tech variety)? I am thinking so.

Sad to see Horny Joe defend the FBI as the back-stop for our democracy. Scar'bro has jumped the shark so many times you'd think he was a trainer at Sea World.

If I can talk about anything, I'd like to mention the impropriety of the extra-marital affair between Strzok & Page. I can't believe that they wouldn't have been shown the door in the old FBI. In many states adultery is a misdemeanor crime. It is also possible that the adultery could lead to blackmail of the FBI agents involved. The FBI has extraordinary powers. Shouldn't its agents be expected not to cheat on their spouses?

James Comey‏Verified account @ComeyJan 3Where are the voices of all the leaders who know an independent Department of Justice and FBI are essential to our liberty? “You are not only responsible for what you say, but also for what you do not say.” — Martin Luther

Can anyone explain to me why on earth we are keeping troops in Syria indefinitely?

Well, it’s called playing the ball where it lies. Obama liked to pretend that Bush didn’t put us in the sand trap, and just used the old “foot wedge” to move the troops out of Iraq, which brought on chaos. For some reason, Hillary and Kerry seemed to think that the US had business in the Syrian civil war, which, had we not poured arms in, and had we left troops in Iraq on the border, Assad probably could have dealt with. Now if we leave, it’s a mess. A deal will have to be made with Assad and Putin, or we give it all back to ISIS. That’s my view anyway.

At least it’s not a new war. We don’t seem to have any new wars going, or even brewing.

Saying when they are going to leave does not work out very well. You may have missed this effect in (say) Iraq, Afghanistan and the states of the former Confederacy after 1877. (Ask American black people about that one.)

If the Davos set, who feel like the answers to all of their problems is to replace the voters in their countries are feeling the pressure, good!

Agree 100%

Now if we leave, it’s a mess. A deal will have to be made with Assad and Putin, or we give it all back to ISIS. That’s my view anyway.

The proximate cause of the rise of ISIS in Syria was the Syrian civil war. ISIS everywhere has been able to thrive in failed states where central governments have limited control over territory (e.g. western Iraq, eastern Syria, and Libya). An ISIS attempt to infiltrate Lebanon was quickly repelled within a matter of days, and ISIS has no significant threat to Lebanon or Jordan for that matter. Attempts to fight ISIS and the Assad regime were always absurd. Trump's decision to end the CIA funding and arming of anti-government forces was a good one. But one of the stated reasons for keeping troops in Syria is to defend areas of Syrian territory captured from anti-government forces. That is putting troops in the middle of a civil war on one side. What authorization does the president have to unilaterally do this?

I opposed everything Obama did in Libya, so I'm not really sure how that's relevant to my argument. The fact that Obama did something wrong is not a defense for Trump doing something wrong. But from a legalistic point of view, US intervention in Libya was authorized under UN Security Council Resolution 1973. There is no UN authorization nor an authorization from Congress for such action in Syria. Even the effort to justify the attacks against ISIS under the 2001 AUMF were laughable, but there is no zero authorization for the president to fight a war against the internationally recognized government of Syria.

I opposed everything Obama did in Libya, so I'm not really sure how that's relevant to my argument. The fact that Obama did something wrong is not a defense for Trump doing something wrong.

I don't know whether your first clause is true, but fundamentally you're right. Except that Obama established a legal precedent -- for better or worse the President of the United States can do just about anything he damn well pleases with the military. I'd don't think that's a good idea, but no one is asking me. You either, come to think of it.

fight a war against the internationally recognized government of Syria.

Well, the problem is that the internationally recognized government can’t hold the territory. There will be a vacuum if we leave. It will have to be negotiated. Obama put us there, we can’t just leave.

Well, the problem is that the internationally recognized government can’t hold the territory. There will be a vacuum if we leave. It will have to be negotiated. Obama put us there, we can’t just leave.

What is the evidence that the "can't hold the territory?" The Syrian Army campaigns against ISIS strongholds between July and October of 2017 were decisive. The army regained control over the entire territory. The most decisive strategic decision was to quit supporting forces that were making war against Assad. The Assad regime, when not being attacked by outside agitators, can keep a lid on the country, just as it did before the Civil War. Plus, Tillerson himself that US forces in Syria were directed against Assad. That has nothing to do with ISIS, and what authority does the US president have to commit troops indefinitely to operate in countries who have not attacked us and pose no threat to us?

I agree that the US was a big part of causing the problem, and we never should have gone in there, but. at this point an exit will have to be negotiated, Who knows what reprisals and retaliations will be unleashed if we just leave. Look at the mess Obama left in Iraq.

It’s a mess, but just leaving now without a negotiated solution is not an option, unless you have the stomach for watching people be gassed for trusting us.

Is it too much to say that you literally, not figuratively or virtually, don't care who lives or dies over there?

How much does “caring” matter? It’s not about what I feel. It’s about what I can do. Any human death is a tragedy, but there are limits to state power. Do you want US soldiers mediating the decades-long internecine civil war in central Africa? How about the civil war in Sri Lanka? Should we get involved in conflicts in Burma over the Rohinga? Should we get involved in separatist conflicts in Thailand? Turkey? Is it just because you don’t care about people dying over there?

I thought the answer was obvious. Yes, I care. Do I want the federal government to do anything about it? No.

I care that 3,000,000 children starve to death every year. Do I want the US government to sponsor a massive international food aid effort? No.

So, I have answered your question. Now, perhaps you can answer my questions. Do you want US military involvement in Sri Lanka? In central Africa? In Southeast Asia? In central Asia? If the answer is no, then we can obviously conclude you don't care about the lives there. So what?

No, J, you can't make it up in volume. Quit ranting, I appreciate your taking the Vulcan remark to heart, but there is such a thing as measure.

So you care about some people dying but not others. Perhaps you can explain to us why it is right to care more about an innocent dead Syrian than an innocent Sri Lankan or Congoan. Of course, given that your position is completely incoherent (and that you're completely incapable of mounting an actual defense for it [as usual]), I won't hold my breath.